It was pretty funny. The question now is, if this high speed rail proposal actually comes to fruition, might this make true what some predicted here: That short haul flying will go by the wayside as people opt to avoid airport-style security?

And then the inevitable question: how long before high speed rail requires the same kind of security? It's bound to happen eventually in this nation, I believe.

The pres spoke about committing to high-speed rail at his last major SOTU address. He said he was going to allot tens of millions of dollars to Amtrak so they can start rebuilding their existing infrastructure so they can offer HSR along the entire East Coast but especially in the NEC. He also talked about HSR from Washington to Chicago and the California HSR network.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 4):I didn't know a high speed rail was on the agenda...how the hell would we pay for it anyway?

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 9):There is no money for NASA and Space programs so how will they find money for high speed rail networks?

The same way we always come up with the money? Buy now, pay later! In part by raising taxes, and borrowing money from other countries.

There's no such thing as a profitable passenger railroad, anyway. Even in Europe, and other countries with high tech HSR, they're never profitable. They're always subsidized by the government to stay a float.

Even if we build it, it doesn't mean American's who are addicted to our cars are going to use it. The car is more comfortable, runs on your schedule, is cheaper, and isn't shared with the general public and all the undesirables that make it up who you have to share public transit with.

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 1):It was pretty funny. The question now is, if this high speed rail proposal actually comes to fruition, might this make true what some predicted here: That short haul flying will go by the wayside as people opt to avoid airport-style security?

The experience in Europe was that really short-haul flying died with the introduction of ICE/TEE/Talgo-type trains, as well as the Channel tunnel. Probably the only really short-haul stuff done now is by the LCCs - and even they want longer sector lengths for obvious reasons.

Quoting silentbob (Reply 6):1. They will never set aside the money while they are fighting to reduce the budget
2. The TSA will require checkpoints in train stations at some point in the not-too-distant future

Agree that 1 will be difficult and 2 will happen fairly soon. Seems to me (as an outside observer looking in) that TSA is following the usual growth curve of a self-justifying empire. Footnote to 2 is that since the gruesome beheading in 2008 on a Greyhound bus in my home province of Manitoba, Greyhound are now doing at least a minimal screening function (metal detector with jacket off, pockets emptied) -- but this is only done at the main city bus depots, not out on the line.

Quoting pwm2txlhopper (Reply 10):There's no such thing as a profitable passenger railroad, anyway. Even in Europe, and other countries with high tech HSR, they're never profitable. They're always subsidized by the government to stay a float.

Is there such a thing as a nationally profitable system of highways and roads? Because many argue that the automobile has enjoyed subsidies in the form of them.

Quoting pwm2txlhopper (Reply 10):There's no such thing as a profitable passenger railroad, anyway. Even in Europe, and other countries with high tech HSR, they're never profitable. They're always subsidized by the government to stay a float.

RENFE and SNCF are both profitable.

-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."-Carl Sagan

There's no such thing as a profitable passenger railroad, anyway. Even in Europe, and other countries with high tech HSR, they're never profitable. They're always subsidized by the government to stay a float.

RENFE and SNCF are both profitable.

The same goes for Deutsche Bahn (DB, Germany) and ÖBB (Austria), even if you take the subsidies out of the calculation. I haven't been able to get figures for the Dutch or scandinavian railroads, but I'd guess that their situation is not that different. Maybe our scandinavian board members can shed some light on that.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 12):Is there such a thing as a nationally profitable system of highways and roads? Because many argue that the automobile has enjoyed subsidies in the form of them.

Further, in many western nations, especially US and Australia, the highway system is seen as a logistical 'no brainer' which has no need of a business case or ROI: everyone just 'knows' we need to invest. As I have quoted before, my friends working in transport governance in Oz advise that 100% of highway wear and tear and therefore maintenance cost is generated by 18 wheel trucks. Cars are negligible as the roads have to be built for these heavy weights. Whilst trucks contribute to the public purse in terms of higher fuel tax etc, they are still getting a taxpayer and private motorist paid subsidized transport network -> Socialism for private enterprise again.

More specifically, to better understand the irrational American popular notions of the relative economics of rail and road, watch the revealing and well documented film available on You Tube, "Taken for a Ride" - How America's rail and street car networks wear systematically dismantled by General Motors and compliant local governments in the 40s-50s.

It's a fact that for shorter segments flying will usually be slower than a fast train when you're looking at the actual travel time (getting to the airport, check-in, boarding, delays, getting off, getting to the destination from the airport vs. getting on the train in the city center and getting off directly at the destination city center).

It's amazing that many americans are still so far removed from already existing and proven reality.

There's no such thing as a profitable passenger railroad, anyway. Even in Europe, and other countries with high tech HSR, they're never profitable. They're always subsidized by the government to stay a float.

RENFE and SNCF are both profitable.

The same goes for Deutsche Bahn (DB, Germany) and ÖBB (Austria),

You might wanna check your research pwm2txlhopper. The Dutch Railways are also profitable, 116 million euro's over 2009...

I think one thing with high speed rail in America is that nobody really takes it. Whenever someone at work says they took the train everyone is amazed. Most people fly over long distances or just drive. A lot of the time the prices to fly and take the train are comparable.
Blue

Look at sweatpants guy. This is a 90 million dollar aircraft, not a Tallahassee strip club

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 19):I think one thing with high speed rail in America is that nobody really takes it.

Um... maybe because we don't HAVE any high-speed rail, INCLUDING the "Acela." Acela's average line speed from NYC to BOS is 80 MPH. That's not High-Speed Rail even if it runs at 150 MPH for 15 minutes. The standard train takes only 30 minutes longer. In markets with rail service, people do use it. If you live in NYC, Boston, Philly, or Washington, D.C., people take the train all the time for intra- and inter-city travel.

So the argument that nobody uses HSR in the US, therefore it won't be successful, is completely absurd.

For the markets in which HSR is proposed (Sacramento-SF-LA-SD, Bos-NYC-DC, etc.) I guarantee that, if stations are properly placed, they will completely kill air travel in those markets, just like they've done in Europe.

Oh, and do you know what the on-time rate is for most HSR systems? >97%. In fact, for Japan's Shinkansen, average delay for a train ride since the start of the network, including natural disasters, is less than two seconds.

-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."-Carl Sagan

High Speed rail just does not make sense in low density regions. That's just the fact. You cannot redeploy a high speed rail line according to loads or season. And in large countries flying will be faster from coast to coast or from northern cities to southern ones... So, large countries AND low population density? They are simply inviable. With some exceptions for sure in localized geographic areas like the United State's northeast or California.

As I mentioned in another thread, the reason railroads worked 100 years ago in places like the USA, Argentina and Canada which built massive systems, is because there were no roads, no air routes and because the countries were being settled that way by immigrants. Once the railroads were not the fastest or only passenger transport method, and when the opening of the frontier stopped, they just simply ceased to be profitable for carrying passengers.

However, they still can work as freight and after the collapse in the 1990s of the argentine passenger railroad many eventually did come back as cargo.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 20):Um... maybe because we don't HAVE any high-speed rail, INCLUDING the "Acela." Acela's average line speed from NYC to BOS is 80 MPH. That's not High-Speed Rail even if it runs at 150 MPH for 15 minutes. The standard train takes only 30 minutes longer. In markets with rail service, people do use it. If you live in NYC, Boston, Philly, or Washington, D.C., people take the train all the time for intra- and inter-city travel.

So the argument that nobody uses HSR in the US, therefore it won't be successful, is completely absurd.

My mistake I meant rail. Yes people do take it for intra and inter-city travel but they don't take it anywhere else.
Blue

Look at sweatpants guy. This is a 90 million dollar aircraft, not a Tallahassee strip club

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 22):My mistake I meant rail. Yes people do take it for intra and inter-city travel but they don't take it anywhere else.
Blue

Nobody is suggesting that HSR would be used to link Chicago with Denver. But for shorter hops that are painfully long by car and just painful by air, HSR is ideal.

I'll tell you about my very first HSR experience: Madrid Atocha to Barcelona Sants. I arrived at the station 15 minutes prior to departure with my large suitcase (I'd been in Madrid for a month). They X-rayed the suitcase; I did not have to take off my coat.

I arrived at the platform with my suitcase which I took myself down to the platform. I boarded the train with the suitcase and placed it in a luggage rack at one end of the car. I then sat down in my seat, made sure that my seatback was in the full, upright and locked position, my traytable was stowed, my carry-ons securely stowed under the seat in front of me and in the overhead rack, and shut off my phone. I then reached for my seatbelt... wait a minute... there was no seatbelt! At this point, I realized there was no takeoff and I could actually recline (I'd guess 36 inch seat pitch), take out my computer, turn my phone back on, etc.

At precisely 3:00 PM, the doors beeped closed and we pulled out of the station. Over the next 2h30m we raced across the Spanish countryside at 297-300 km/h. At all times, I was free to stand up and move around, read, use my computer, talk on my phone, pay a visit to the cafeteria car, etc.

At 5:33 PM, ten minutes early, we pulled into Barcelona Sants station. I rose, walked to the end of the car, grabbed my suitcase, walked out of the station, hailed a cab, arrived at my hotel, checked in and at 5:53 PM, I was flopping down on my bed.

My next experience with HSR was when I went back to Spain and took the 9AM train from Madrid to Córdoba. This would be a 5-6 hour drive but it is just over an hour on the train. I spent a lovely day in Córdoba (you can walk from the station to the Old City) and then at 5PM took the train back to Madrid. I made the round trip as a tourist in one day. Before 1992 that would never have been possible and it wouldn't be possible if I had to fly it because of the time factor involved with getting to and from airports, not to mention the inflexibility of airline schedules.

-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."-Carl Sagan

There's no such thing as a profitable passenger railroad, anyway. Even in Europe, and other countries with high tech HSR, they're never profitable. They're always subsidized by the government to stay a float.

RENFE and SNCF are both profitable.

The same goes for Deutsche Bahn (DB, Germany) and ÖBB (Austria), even if you take the subsidies out of the calculation. I haven't been able to get figures for the Dutch or scandinavian railroads, but I'd guess that their situation is not that different. Maybe our scandinavian board members can shed some light on that.

Rail isn't my interest, but everything I've ever read has made it clear that in general HSR isn't profitable with the exception of a few short lines.

The director of high-speed rail at the International Union of Railways in Paris also agrees.

Railroads like Deutsche Bahn aren't made up of only HSR trains. They have other non-high speed trains as well. More so than the high speed ones. It's my guess that it's those trains that bring in the revenue, and cover the cost of operating and maintaining the high speed trains.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 19):I think one thing with high speed rail in America is that nobody really takes it. Whenever someone at work says they took the train everyone is amazed. Most people fly over long distances or just drive. A lot of the time the prices to fly and take the train are comparable.

In Europe, the train is faster AND infinitely more civilized. The PLANE is left to the EUROTRASH!!!!!!

Quoting pwm2txlhopper (Reply 24):Railroads like Deutsche Bahn aren't made up of only HSR trains. They have other non-high speed trains as well. More so than the high speed ones. It's my guess that it's those trains that bring in the revenue, and cover the cost of operating and maintaining the high speed trains.

It's exactly the other way around: The most profitable trains are the high-speed ones (there's usually a surcharge to the ticket).

SNCF is profitable, but RFF is not. RFF is the company responsible for the tracks. It was taken out of SNCF to follow EU regulations, allowing other rail companies to use the French tracks.

RFF owns all the debt for building the high speed lines, and currently the customers (mostly SNCF, but also DB, and soon Trenitalia) don't pay enough to both repay the debt and pay for maintenance, so the French taxpayer pays the difference.

Writing this I just found out the situation is quite ridiculous, RFF has to maintain the tracks but can only contract the SNCF to do it, and SNCF asks more money for that maintenance than it actually pays for using the tracks !

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 12):Is there such a thing as a nationally profitable system of highways and roads? Because many argue that the automobile has enjoyed subsidies in the form of them.

And don't forget the price paid in military gear and salaries etc. to allow for cheap gas !

New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams

Quoting Derico (Reply 21):High Speed rail just does not make sense in low density regions.

That's correct for The Netherlands. Every day 1 million people of a population of 16 million take the train. I work in a big law firm in Amsterdam, even some partners (who are quite loaded) arrive by train. It's a complety accepted mode of transportation. (and it beats the bus!)

This article is full of half truths and sloppy misrepresentations. I don't think he knows the subject but, like many on this forum who are against HSR, will repeat any myth or opinion irrespective of facts if it fits their position.

For example, he says Eurostar is not getting the passengers it forecast. It is getting 80-85%+ of the London-Paris market as well as enlarging that market itself. What more success could you have?? He says it was the subject of a government bailout. Untrue, the Channel Tunnel company operater was floated as an IPO and has always struggled. Not surprsing and I'm not sure who's idea this was. It was bailed out, not Eurostar. If you did this to the highway networks, most would struggle too. Public infrastructure should be just that, public. So both these claims are untrue and that was just one paragraph.

Quoting pwm2txlhopper (Reply 10):Even if we build it, it doesn't mean American's who are addicted to our cars are going to use it. The car is more comfortable, runs on your schedule, is cheaper, and isn't shared with the general public and all the undesirables that make it up who you have to share public transit with.

All HST I've been on have been more comfortable than cars. And even at speeds in the order of 160-190MPH you get an amazingly smooth ride, esentially flying on rails.

As already mentioned there are several potential routes in the US where the distances are such that the HST would easily beat air travel.

Quoting pwm2txlhopper (Reply 10):Even if we build it, it doesn't mean American's who are addicted to our cars are going to use it. The car is more comfortable, runs on your schedule, is cheaper, and isn't shared with the general public and all the undesirables that make it up who you have to share public transit with.

What exactly in your view is so different intrinsically about people in the US that makes them destined to behave in the opposite manner from people in every other developed country?

Point by point:

i) "The car is more comfortable"

Nonsense, I've got a beautiful car which I love driving in the country, but when I want to get from city centre to city centre, I leave it in the garage and take the HSR where in first class I have loads of room, quiet and can on some routes be served a good meal with wine at my seat, all whilst traveling 3 times faster than by road on the open highway at top speed. The new cabins and seating are even designed by Christian Lacroix.

II) "is cheaper"

Probably not if you're driving alone and paying for fuel and tolls. Also, for business and leisure, what's your TIME worth? If you can get from A to B four times faster, counting the city traffic portions of the route, is the car a better deal? I think not.

III) " isn't shared with the general public and all the undesirables that make it up who you have to share public transit with"

Americans seem to have the greatest contempt for their countrymen who are regular public transport uses. This appears to be because only the poorest and most socio-economicly marginalized are seen to use the very poor existing services, other than in places like Manhattan, Boston, etc. If you had decent services, as has been said above, you would have mainstream, premium business users.

Have you noticed the unsavory types you have to share the road with ? BTW, they make it much more dangerous than rail travel for you as well.

IV) "runs on your schedule"

HSR run in most countries on a more reliable schedule than any air traffic and certainly are the most punctually and on time transport service ever conceived. You in your car will spend half you life parked at traffic light and stuck in traffic.

In short, I entirely disagree and these statements seem to relate more to tastes than to the logistical, economic and behavioral realities.

Even if we build it, it doesn't mean American's who are addicted to our cars are going to use it. The car is more comfortable, runs on your schedule, is cheaper, and isn't shared with the general public and all the undesirables that make it up who you have to share public transit with.

What exactly in your view is so different intrinsically about people in the US that makes them destined to behave in the opposite manner from people in every other developed country?

I don't know why it's the way it is, but I know over here people don't like public transit and they'd rather drive. It's just the way it is. I've lived in Germany. I know it's different over there.

For one thing, people want to get up and go on their time. Not have to wait around for a train, miss a train and be stranded and have to wait. Even for 15 minutes. Also in the USA, aside from the Northeast Corridor, passenger trains use freight railroads tracks. The freight trains have priority. So it's not uncommon for your train to pull over on a siding and sit and wait for what seems like forever for oncoming freight trains to pass. Plus, Amtrak is always breaking down, delayed, canceled and completely unreliable.

Plus, in the USA, If you don't live in a major city, you have no other affordable option but to drive, because there is no public transport. No trains, no buses, no trams, nothing. I live 30km from the city, and outside of taking a cab for about 60 Euro's, I can either walk or ride a bike. That gets old fast if you have to do a roundtrip to work every day.

Nonsense, I've got a beautiful car which I love driving in the country, but when I want to get from city centre to city centre, I leave it in the garage and take the HSR where in first class I have loads of room, quiet and can on some routes be served a good meal with wine at my seat, all whilst traveling 3 times faster than by road on the open highway at top speed. The new cabins and seating are even designed by Christian Lacroix.

In the USA, things are more spread out. Fine, you take the train to the city center, but then you've got to get around other places and rely on subways and buses. A lot of them are dirty, with undesirable people one them. Often not running on time, and occasionally dropping you off in parts of town that aren't safe. Especially at night. And again, you have to stand around waiting. You can miss trains, etc. I can't count the number of times in Berlin I'd come into subway station late at night, only to see the train leaving. I'd then have to sit there in the cold for 25 minutes waiting for the next train! I don't want to wait. I want to go on my time. I don't want to sit with people I don't know and smell them. Listen to their pointless conversations or arguments, or have some fat guys stomach spill over into my space.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 32):Probably not if you're driving alone and paying for fuel and tolls. Also, for business and leisure, what's your TIME worth? If you can get from A to B four times faster, counting the city traffic portions of the route, is the car a better deal? I think not.

Well, I haven't taken the train in the Northeast Corridor recently, but last time I checked, to go from Boston to NYC was something like $150-200 on the high speed Acela. I could drive that in three and a half hours for less than $30 in fuel and tolls. If I wanted to go downtown and avoid traffic I could drive to the outskirts of the city and just hop on a commuter train to get into the city, or take a cab. I live in Portland, Maine. The only train we have is PWM-BOS North Station. It cost twice as much as driving, and takes a half hour longer. (2.5 hours compared to 2 by car) Plus, it brings me to North Station. All the other trains out of Boston to NYC and points onwards leave from South Station. There is no easy way to transfer. Either take a cab and get stuck in downtown traffic. Or ride the subway that smells like urine, make a connection, and take 25 minutes to go a couple miles. Not to mention deal with the homeless alcoholics and pan handlers begging for money and causing a scene.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 32):III) " isn't shared with the general public and all the undesirables that make it up who you have to share public transit with"

Americans seem to have the greatest contempt for their countrymen who are regular public transport uses. This appears to be because only the poorest and most socio-economicly marginalized are seen to use the very poor existing services, other than in places like Manhattan, Boston, etc. If you had decent services, as has been said above, you would have mainstream, premium business users.

I wouldn't call it contempt. it's just it's not that pleasant. We'd rather drive in privacy and not share the train with a bunch of other people talking on their cell phones, farting, coughing and sneezing in the winter, and being loud and obnoxious like a lot of Americans can be.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 32):Have you noticed the unsavory types you have to share the road with ? BTW, they make it much more dangerous than rail travel for you as well.

That's why we have guns. Get into a road rage incident and you just pull your gun out and shoot them, or drive them off the road! In the USA, you never know which driver is going to be crazy enough to kill you over a road rage incident Just kidding! But seriously, I've never had any problems with other drivers. Sometimes people driving too slow, or people being aggressive assholes, but I don't get worked up about it too much. Just flip them off and cuss them out, and in ten minutes I've forgotten all about it.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 32):In short, I entirely disagree and these statements seem to relate more to tastes than to the logistical, economic and behavioral realities.

You're right. It could completely come down to taste. And in the USA we prefer to drive our cars. Gas is only a fraction of the cost you guys pay with the government taxes inflating the price to ridiculous amounts. Right now, it's considered expensive, but I can get 3 liters for about three Euros. It's usually more like 2 Euros. In the not too distant past, about 7 years ago, you could buy 3 liters for a Euro. The environmentalist nuts won't let us drill for our own oil though, so we just have to keep getting raped by the OPEC countries even though we have plenty of our own oil in The Gulf, Alaska, and the shale fields.

Quoting pwm2txlhopper (Reply 33):Well, I haven't taken the train in the Northeast Corridor recently, but last time I checked, to go from Boston to NYC was something like $150-200 on the high speed Acela. I could drive that in three and a half hours for less than $30 in fuel and tolls. If I wanted to go downtown and avoid traffic I could drive to the outskirts of the city and just hop on a commuter train to get into the city, or take a cab. I live in Portland, Maine. The only train we have is PWM-BOS North Station. It cost twice as much as driving, and takes a half hour longer. (2.5 hours compared to 2 by car) Plus, it brings me to North Station. All the other trains out of Boston to NYC and points onwards leave from South Station. There is no easy way to transfer. Either take a cab and get stuck in downtown traffic. Or ride the subway that smells like urine, make a connection, and take 25 minutes to go a couple miles. Not to mention deal with the homeless alcoholics and pan handlers begging for money and causing a scene.

I've taken the Aclea a number of times from NYC to Boston and I assure you it is NOT a HSR. It runs on the old tracks and maintains an speed of around 80 miles per hour, with a few very short runs of 100. As you have no real HSR in the US, there are no case studies to table as examples of prices or levels of use.

If Acela operated at European HSR specs, the journey would be approx 75 mns or less.

As for waiting for trains, Berlin is not densely populated today for historical reasons and the government are trying to encourage people and businesses to move there to build it back up. Hence local public transport is probably not as frequent as in most cities in Europe. In Paris, on most days I can get a metro or suburban train every 2 - 5mns, the time it would take you to get out of your car park. One riding it, I am traveing MUCH faster than I ever could on the surface in my car.

Quoting pwm2txlhopper (Reply 33):In the USA, things are more spread out. Fine, you take the train to the city center, but then you've got to get around other places and rely on subways and buses. A lot of them are dirty, with undesirable people one them. Often not running on time, and occasionally dropping you off in parts of town that aren't safe. Especially at night. And again, you have to stand around waiting. You can miss trains, etc. I can't count the number of times in Berlin I'd come into subway station late at night, only to see the train leaving. I'd then have to sit there in the cold for 25 minutes waiting for the next train! I don't want to wait. I want to go on my time. I don't want to sit with people I don't know and smell them. Listen to their pointless conversations or arguments, or have some fat guys stomach spill over into my space.

Yes, city centre to city centre, nothing beats HSR: faster than flying, 3-4 times faster than driving;

"I don't want to sit with people I don't know and smell them. Listen to their pointless conversations or arguments, or have some fat guys stomach spill over into my space."

Then I take it you are NOT an aviation enthusiast when in the US, because that's exactly the experience of domestic US air travel, isn't it?

On HSR you have a lot more room generally, so the fat guy's stomach is better accommodated.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 34):I've taken the Aclea a number of times from NYC to Boston and I assure you it is NOT a HSR. It runs on the old tracks and maintains an speed of around 80 miles per hour, with a few very short runs of 100. As you have no real HSR in the US, there are no case studies to table as examples of prices or levels of use.

Agreed, It's not HSR by other countries standards. There's actually about a 15 minute stretch it goes up to about 120MPH. Nowhere near as fast as ICE, or TVG, though.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 34):As for waiting for trains, Berlin is not densely populated today for historical reasons and the government are trying to encourage people and businesses to move there to build it back up. Hence local public transport is probably not as frequent as in most cities in Europe. In Paris, on most days I can get a metro or suburban train every 2 - 5mns, the time it would take you to get out of your car park. One riding it, I am traveling MUCH faster than I ever could on the surface in my car.

Yeah, it went from almost 6 million pre WWII, to 3.5 million today. There's just little industry there or jobs there compared to other parts of the country to attract people. If it wasn't for the rest of Germany's tax payers the whole city would fall apart. Kind of gritty, but I love the city!

I got use to using public transit. Almost had to learn how to drive again when I came back here after 2 years of not driving. In the day time wait times aren't bad. Just a few minutes. But late at night, subways only come about every half hour. Same with trams and buses. Then they completely stop from 2:00 until 4 or 5 in the morning. Just sucked when it was winter, cold as hell, late at night and I was trying to get home and freezing to death, if I was unlucky enough to get stuck at an above ground station.

Public transit is a lot nicer over there, I'll give you that. NYC and Washington subways are pretty decent, but most of the other ones I've been on over here suck! Including NYC back in the 1980's. That felt like taking your life into your own hands back then!

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 34):Then I take it you are NOT an aviation enthusiast when in the US, because that's exactly the experience of domestic US air travel, isn't it?

Oh, I love aviation and flying. Just not commercially. All the pleasure has been sucked out of that completely over the last 20 years. It's essentially like riding on a flying public bus! It sucks unless you're in Business or First! The last time I flew back from Europe, I was lucky enough to get all three seats to myself. I tried to lay down and sleep, but when I arrived, I couldn't stand up straight for three days because my back was so out of whack from contorting into unnatural positions for eight hours and getting my head whacked by the drink cart.

nice to see he's in touch with this stuff in everyday life. i mean after all, he doesn't have to worry about that stuff and this IMHO, shows he's got a sense of humor, which not a lot of politicians have these days.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 25):In Europe, the train is faster AND infinitely more civilized. The PLANE is left to the EUROTRASH!!!!!!

I had a bunch of chavs on my train from York to Manchester earlier this year. Got into a massive fistfight that took up most of the car I was in. I huddled in my seat and hoped to be ignored. Fortunately I was as they brawled. This was an overnight train and the fight happened at around 1am, while moving.

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 38):Quoting ozglobal (Reply 25):
In Europe, the train is faster AND infinitely more civilized. The PLANE is left to the EUROTRASH!!!!!!

I had a bunch of chavs on my train from York to Manchester earlier this year. Got into a massive fistfight that took up most of the car I was in. I huddled in my seat and hoped to be ignored. Fortunately I was as they brawled. This was an overnight train and the fight happened at around 1am, while moving.

Definitely civilized.

The UK is just another version of the US when it comes to public infrastructure policy and attitudes to cars, public investment and especially HSR. This is no HSR in the UK except the London-Chunnel line recently completed.

Further, I will never pretend to guarantee you will be free from rednecks anywhere. On the other hand, I hope you're not expecting this poor experience to somehow dismiss an argument that today, premium HSR travel in continental Europe has become a more pleasant and preferred option to short haul flights (often on LCC's) over the same routes?

Sure there is. Just look at various railroads in the US prior to Amtrak.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 20):aybe because we don't HAVE any high-speed rail, INCLUDING the "Acela." Acela's average line speed from NYC to BOS is 80 MPH. That's not High-Speed Rail even if it runs at 150 MPH for 15 minutes. The standard train takes only 30 minutes longer.

Acela is rightly a joke. To charge a premium for 30 less travel is absurd. Even the LIRR runs at 80mph on most runs.

Quoting mirrodie (Reply 40):Sure there is. Just look at various railroads in the US prior to Amtrak.

That was before airline transport took over. After that happened, the railroads were finding they were no longer making money carrying passengers. So, they stopped providing passenger service in favor of becoming all freight railroads. By the time Amtrak came along in the early 1970's, passenger rail was essentially deemed obsolete by the traveling public.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 42):That's because there wasn't any high-speed rail to be had except in Japan where Shinkansen was just being developed.

This is 2010. Technology has changed and for routes

Technology has changed, but that isn't really the issue. We absolutely have the ability to provide HSR. I don't believe anybody is doubting that. I believe the problem is convincing the public to take it, and of course allow funds to build the infrastructure. I don't think that is going to be easy at all.
Blue

Look at sweatpants guy. This is a 90 million dollar aircraft, not a Tallahassee strip club

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 45):Quoting DocLightning (Reply 42):
That's because there wasn't any high-speed rail to be had except in Japan where Shinkansen was just being developed.

This is 2010. Technology has changed and for routes

Technology has changed, but that isn't really the issue. We absolutely have the ability to provide HSR. I don't believe anybody is doubting that. I believe the problem is convincing the public to take it, and of course allow funds to build the infrastructure. I don't think that is going to be easy at all.
Blue

If we only did what was easy, with short term values and thinking, without vision or long term responsibility, then railways would never have been built back in the 19th century and the 'Developed World' would not be nearly so 'developed'. The arguments against HSR are all lacking in these qualities. The pioneers of the 19th century must be turning in their graves seeing the lack of vision, leadership and enterprise that this generation has generated.

As for the public being ready to use it, these objections were raised about commercial aviation and passenger railways before that.

China is opening new lines regularly over comparable distances to those being proposed in the US. The obstacle to HSR in the US is a lack of vision and a profound 'not made here' syndrome (if it were the answer, we would have thought of it first..., now the only option is to devote our energy to explaining why it's not for us).